(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3569) Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations-N1722
Tue Apr 8 18:23:58 EDT 2008
Sorry this is late.
Yes No Number Title
-C- --- F03/0003 Referencing deferred bindings
-Y- --- F03/0004 Type-bound procedures and undefined association
-Y- --- F03/0079 Value of decimal exponent for a real zero value
-Y- --- F03/0080 Formatted output of a negative real zero value
-Y- --- F03/0100 Error in field width for special cases of signed
-Y- --- F03/0104 Deallocation and finalization of bounds-remapped
-Y- --- F03/0106 Inquire by unit inconsistencies
-Y- --- F03/0107 Are the IEEE_* elemental routines required
-Y- --- F03/0108 Is IEEE_SUPPORT_NAN consistent with the other
Comment on YES vote on F03/0003:
The paragraph immediately above ANSWER is more
confusing than helpful, and in any
case is merely a comment by the Interp submitter. I believe it should be
entirely deleted since it is not properly part of the
question nor of the answer.
My reading of the paragraph is that it really means something like:
Because x is disassociated, its dynamic type is the same as its declared type,
thus the interpretation of x%deferred_proc would have been reasonably clear
if deferred_proc had been a nondeferred procedure [namely the binding in
type(t) would be the procedure called].
It's not worth rewriting the paragraph to make it crystal clear, but I think
its intent is subverted if the reference to x%nondeferred_proc
is simply changed to x%deferred_proc; the submitter really is talking about
nondeferred procedures here.
More information about the J3